Is an Inquiry a “Court or Tribunal”? John Goss and Paige Jones appear in the High Court

John Goss and Paige Jones appeared for the Royal Military Police (“RMP”) in a case management conference for a judicial review of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan on 3 October 2025. Notably, Steyn J handed down what is believed to be the first decision on whether or not an Inquiry is a “court or tribunal” within the meaning of paragraph 4.6(2) of Practice Direction 54A of the Civil Procedure Rules (“PD 54A”), a point which is significant both to who should be named as Interested Parties to any judicial review challenge and to what relief may be granted. One of the arguments advanced was that the Inquiry was a tribunal and that PD54A para 4.6 operates as a deeming provision which means that any participant in legal proceedings which are challenged by way of judicial review is to be treated as directly affected by that judicial review claim and falls within the definition of “interested party” in CPR 54.1(2)(f).

Steyn J considered that the wording of “court or tribunal” in the practice direction should be interpreted consistently with the same in section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (“the SCA”). However, she noted that this gives rise to the question of how that same term should be interpreted in the context of section 31 SCA.

Steyn J determined that there is no definition of the term “court or tribunal” in the SCA and it was therefore a matter for the court to determine. In her judgment an Inquiry was plainly not a court but, she asked, is it a tribunal? After some consideration, Steyn J held that ordinarily a tribunal would be understood to be a judicial body which determines relevant types of disputes between parties. She went on that the Inquiry has not been set up to determine a dispute, and there are no parties as such (with reference to R v South London Coroner, ex parte Thompson (1982) 126 S.J. 625 as cited in Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London [2013] EWHC 1786 (Admin) at §24).

Instead, Steyn J held that the Inquiry is a public authority to which section 31(5A) of the SCA would be inapplicable and that it is not a court or tribunal for purposes of PD54A. As such, not all Core Participants in a public inquiry are entitled to be Interested Parties as of right in any judicial review challenge, only those who directly affected by the claim.

As well as acting for the RMP in the High Court (led by Paul Greaney KC), John and Paige also act for the RMP in the Inquiry itself. Both John and Paige have extensive experience of major inquests and inquiries, especially relating to the military and issues of national security.